Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

mario_grgic writes "Apple insider brings a story about expansion and renewal of a current 'Advertisement in Operating System' patent that Apple's Steve Jobs and other contributors have. The patent describes in detail (with OS X screen shots) how the forced ads would work (they would disable some OS functionality until the ad is viewed), but apparently it also applies to any device with a UI, including phones, TVs, set top boxes, etc. With Apple's recent entry into the mobile ad business, and its ambition to own half of all the mobile ads served during the second half of this year, it certainly makes one wonder if Apple would dare and put something like this in its desktop OS. I wonder if this would push more people to open source alternatives?"

With recent Apple entry into mobile ad business, and ambition to own half of all the mobile ads served in second half of this year, it certainly makes one wonder if Apple would dare and put something like this in its desktop OS. I wonder if this would push more people to open source alternatives?

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

But when I read the article, it seemed to make other assumptions about how this patent would be used. Assumptions that frankly make a whole hell of a lot more sense than asking users who have already paid a premium for an Apple desktop to watch iAds to further increase your profits. From the article:

Such a system could be used on computers placed in public places, allowing free access to the Internet on a terminal without paying a fee. Users could also choose to pay the fee and avoid the advertisements if they wish.

Huh. Imagine that. You know, when I walk through an airport I see people sitting around watching LCDs. And in between these CNN content sections are advertisements. That everyone seems to tolerate. I would wager that if you put in terminals with ads for internet access at airports, there would be an unending line to use them. Given that I only got free internet at an airport when Google felt generous last holiday season, I'd gladly use it and gladly watch ads.

Furthermore I pay $75+ per month for a smartphone with a data plan. This is the cheapest option and it includes a 20% off employer discount. If you could cut this in half with this sort of ad crap in the OS, you just might convince me to hop off of my Android operating system and on to crApple... even a different carrier.

Like you, I am adverse to ad watching when I have already paid for something under the assumption I will be given unmitigated access to it. Like anyone else who has watched TV over the airwaves, I am interested in how you can reduce my financial liabilities via nominal time goblin advertisements and, while I'm certainly no economist, I believe that advertisements are very healthy for the economy. The market adjusts if they become too invasive or unhealthy (people revolt against the products using such tactics) but it results in more cash in my pocket to make more purchases with and entices me to make more purchases. Google's basically been minting money with them and has maintained a (for the most part) positive relationship with its consumers--despite those "consumers" being the very product they sell to other companies!

While I'm not a big fan of Design Patents (which I think this is), I think Apple could pull this off and generate some interest in yet further proliferation of ads. We all complain when we pay for something like a video game only to get DLC ads but I think if you popped a free ad laden iDevice into someone's hands they'd quit complaining fairly quickly.

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

I don't see how you're able to say that it's "unlikely" and "highly contrived", considering there's a mockup of an osx-ish desktop in the article. The other portion you quoted about that it "could" be used for public kiosks, etc, doesn't say it *won't* be used for anything else. Especially when further in the article it specifically notes that it applies to anything with a UI, like set top boxes, smart phones, TV's, and others. Those aren't really public kiosk devices.

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

I don't see how you're able to say that it's "unlikely" and "highly contrived", considering there's a mockup of an osx-ish desktop in the article. The other portion you quoted about that it "could" be used for public kiosks, etc, doesn't say it *won't* be used for anything else. Especially when further in the article it specifically notes that it applies to anything with a UI, like set top boxes, smart phones, TV's, and others. Those aren't really public kiosk devices.

People with a major Apple bashing fetish can go on constructing wild conspiracy theories based on this patent all they want but I'm not particularly worried. Applying for a patent is one thing, using it is quite another. If Apple starts forcing people who paid anywhere from $699 (entry level MacMini) to $3.299 (top of the line 8-core Mac Pro) to watch iAds on their desktop OS, Apple will start losing business really quickly. They'd be shooting them selves in the foot much, much worse than Microsoft did with

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

You lost me on "hate" and "smug bastard" and later on in your post "crApple"... this kind of talk is nonsense and whatever else you said sounded like the other end of a phone call in a Charlie Brown cartoon.

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

You lost me on "hate" and "smug bastard" and later on in your post "crApple"... this kind of talk is nonsense and whatever else you said sounded like the other end of a phone call in a Charlie Brown cartoon.

It's simply that commenting in such a manner (using absolute, hateful, denigrating terms) on the internet is not productive. Not At All. Used in this way it's not even sport. It's not even a taunt, it's just blindness.

It's simply that commenting in such a manner (using absolute, hateful, denigrating terms) on the internet is not productive. Not At All. Used in this way it's not even sport. It's not even a taunt, it's just blindness.

I aim to point it out where possible.

I was joking-- hopefully obviously, but written word's a funny thing. Anyway, I agree -- I tend to stop reading when I see that kind of post. When I see someone claiming to "hate" a person they've never met and can't possibly know it's usually a good sign that there's not much content of worth. Phrasing that includes "M$", "crApple", "Winblows", "Linsux" and the various other flavors just come across as juvenile; if you have to resort to name-calling, it's pretty hard to take anything you say seriously

Whats wrong with crapple? Oh, it must not be right to change how a word/name is said when it's something YOU like.

As usual with slang, the special vocabulary of hackers helps hold places in the community and expresses shared values and experiences. Also as usual, not knowing the slang (or using it inappropriately) defines one as an outsider, a mundane, or (worst of all in hackish vocabulary) possibly even a suit. All human cultures use slang in this threefold way — as a tool of communication, and of i

what? public kiosks? it's 2010. in 5 years most of the country will have a multicore computer with 4g wireless in their pocket and you think people will want to stand around and use a shared computer? why? to do what?

I mean, yeah, there's some spin in this article. But i've seen far far worse on slashdot. It makes a huge leap from "will apple actually do it" to "will people start installing linux" which is fairly preposterous. But it seems clear that apple is at least contemplating a version of iAds for the

Many of these public kiosks would be in airports, most people use airports to fly to countries other than their native one...When you're in a foreign country, data service on your cellphone via roaming becomes extremely expensive.

it's 2010. in 5 years most of the country will have a multicore computer with 4g wireless in their pocket and you think people will want to stand around and use a shared computer? why? to do what?

There will still be a small market for these things for people from other jurisdictions. I'm Canadian - When I'm in the USA or Europe the roaming charges on my smartphone are so painful I don't turn it on. There are tons of stories about Americans travelling in Mexico and returning to $5000 mobile phone bills.

I see what you did there. You made an unlikely assumption about how this patent would be used and then you turned it into an advertisement for open source. Well done. I hate Apple and Steve Jobs (smug bastard) vehemently but even I recognized that to be a highly contrived scenario and illogical statement.

But when I read the article, it seemed to make other assumptions about how this patent would be used. Assumptions that frankly make a whole hell of a lot more sense than asking users who have already paid a premium for an Apple desktop to watch iAds to further increase your profits. From the article:

Such a system could be used on computers placed in public places, allowing free access to the Internet on a terminal without paying a fee. Users could also choose to pay the fee and avoid the advertisements if they wish.

Furthermore I pay $75+ per month for a smartphone with a data plan. This is the cheapest option and it includes a 20% off employer discount. If you could cut this in half with this sort of ad crap in the OS, you just might convince me to hop off of my Android operating system and on to crApple... even a different carrier..

Interesting. You accuse the parent of speculating on the likely use of this patent, but you end up building up a scenario that is very close to this very speculation... and you say you would want it.

I would never tolerate advertising messing with my OS, under any pretext and notwithstanding any promise. If this is allowed to go on, there will be no end to it, and it will not cost you a cent less in the end.

They tried this with Net Zero Dialup Internet service many years ago... the response was great! But the company couldn't sustain that model because there were too many tools to disable or completely remove the advertisement. As you all know, they had ads on the screen, and the ad providers paid for your free service. So no ads = no clicking on ads = no selling/buying = no more free dialup inet.

I hate to say it but this "could be good for some random person," but definitely not for most. I'll stick to the

Judging by the idiotic statements made by many slashdotters (including you, obviously), y'all are just so stupid that you can't understand the simple fact that iAds is about allowing developers to give the option of paying for the app via watching ads. It is not about the OS randomly bombarding users with ads. Fucking idiot slashtrolls...
-- ...and the horse you rode in on!

"According to the patent application, users could also choose to access the advertisements when they choose, delaying an ad by 10 minutes, or choosing to watch one immediately. This would help to ensure that the ad is not overly intrusive, appearing while the user was in the middle of an important task."

You're right they aren't "randomly bombarding users with ads" they are "regularly bombarding users with ads".

Why should anyone but me decide when I relax and when I should be able to work?

Because you're supposed to think different. [So long as it's how Apple tells you to think.] Before the fanboys go up in flames, I'll point out a disclaimer: this is typed on a (second-hand hand-me-down) MacBook...

Apple is (I hope) simply taking out the patent to stake out the ground before Microsoft does the same. The line (from TFA) that says:"...delaying an ad by 10 minutes, or choosing to watch one immediately. This woul

1. Apple's computer unit sales have increased more than any other PC manufacturer in the past few years.2. Apple's margins on their computers is the highest in the industry3. Apple's profit on computer sales is very high4. Apple's profit on phone sales is higher than many other vendors COMBINED5. Apple's been in the smart phone business 3 years and has managed to sweep a segment into majority play6. Apple's iPad, out for almost one quarter, is seen to be eating into low end, very low margin products from other vendors (cough::netbooks::/cough)

I don't believe there is all that much trouble on Apple's product pricing. True there will always be pressure to reduce prices, thereby reducing margins. However, Apple have decided to sale above that fray and have proven thus far successful.

1. If you go from selling 1 computer to 2 computers, you have just increased your sales by 100%. Apples volume to very low compared to Dell or HP, so woopdy doo..

2. You got that right. Apple tax! Enjoy!3. Point 2 answered that one, this is redundant.4. Yes they have high phone sales, so which vendors do they have higher sales on combined? The Kin and the nexus??5. well duh, too obvious of a point.6. Different products for different markets, iPads don't eat into netbook sales. Even without the iPon on the ma

1, 2, 3. According to the Q2 2010 statistics, Apple is 4th place in the US with 9.8% of the market. Ahead of them are (3rd) Acer with 11.3%, (2nd) Dell with 23.7%, and (1st) HP with 25.7%.

Apple doesn't even make the top 6 world-wide; number 6 has 5.1%, so it's less than that.

6.

"The consumer PC market registered double-digit shipment growth, but consumer mobile shipment growth slowed. This was due in part to slower growth of mini-notebooks," Ms. Kitagawa said. "Surging popularity of Apple's iPad temporarily cannibalized mini-notebooks, as well as consumer notebook sales to some degree. It is not certain at this stage if the cannibalization will continue with the current price point of media tablets."

-- Gartner, talking about the US computer market

What does this mean? It means that (in the US market), the iPad has stolen some of the mini-notebook (AKA Netbook) growth, but it is still a growing market segment.

This may be technically correct with respect to the hardware, but Apple subsidizes their OS and application development costs with some of that margin. When you buy a Mac, you get the hardware plus OSX, iTunes, Time Machine, Mail, iChat, Safari, Front Row, GarageBand, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, etc....

Now you might be inclined to think that this is true of any PC you buy, but I think if you look at the software that's in the boxes and compare you will see that Apple provides much more commercial quality software than the typical PC you might buy. That software cost money to develop and a large portion of that money comes from hardware sales.

Not trying to beat you up - merely pointing out that you are comparing Apples and oranges... so-to-speak.

Everything else is junk from the Mcaffee internet panic attack to the MS office 30 day nag trial to all the games that are nothing more than junk to get the machine full of ad's.

A OSX machine, even the lowest mac mini comes with a music editor, video editor, DVD video authoring app, Photo manager and basic editor, Backup solution and media organizer. None are cripple ware or 30 day trials... thay all are full retail versions.

There are a large number of things that I hate Apple products for, the desktop environment that does not lend itself to heavy multitasking (from a user perspective), the absurdly militant device compatibility rules (can't get any data on or off your iPhone unless it goes through iTunes from the same PC you used to set it up) and the poorly organized layout which makes Spotlight the main way to access your files and programs. iAds will go a long way to adding to the annoyance that is the Apple experience.

You first confess that you haven't used apple's products, and then make unjustified sweeping statements about it's usability. Apple come features like Exposé which allow very very easy multitasking, and you simply say "it doesn't lend itself to heavy multitasking" with no justification. Exactly what about OS X does not lend itself to heavy multitasking? Exactly what about the "poorly organized layout" makes it difficult to find your files? What is not organized well?

There are a large number of things that I hate Apple products for, the desktop environment that does not lend itself to heavy multitasking (from a user perspective),... the poorly organized layout which makes Spotlight the main way to access your files and programs. iAds will go a long way to adding to the annoyance that is the Apple experience.

Bring on the enforced ad watching.

What are you talking about? OSX lends itself wonderfully to multitasking from all perspectives. Expose + Spaces are phenomenal for running multiple applications even supporting multiple desktops to break up tasks which is all well supported by the underlying Unix based OS. Also, what is so hard about accessing files and programs? You have a home directory for your data and an applications directory for programs? If you want something even better, install Quicksilver or Launchbar.

I don't think this would be something implemented system wide, more than likely it could be iAds framework that developers could use when releasing free Mac Apps. Apple spends considerable time looking into user experience so something that would drive people away in droves is not likely to make it into OS X. Could also be a misleading patent that's really for iOS for Apple TV (which makes more sense to me). Something like free Movie/Music/Otherwise Paid content delivered via iTunes on Apple TV with need to watch the ads in order to keep viewing it, or pay up to download and have full access to that content. The same concept could apply to iTunes Store on Mac OS X.

Are you kidding? Apple users would take about 3 minutes to reboot their brains and then be all over the internet proclaiming how insanely brilliant this move would be. How the ads were fantastic and innovative proving (once again!) how far ahead of everyone else Steve Jobs is......and anyone who disagrees is just an Apple-hater.

Oh give it a rest. Not all Apple users are fanboy idiots. I've got a Macbook Pro because it's a good bit of hardware and it suits my needs. I've also got an HTC mobile because an iPhone doesn't. I don't like the sound of this ad system any more than you do though I have a feeling it's not as bad as the SlashFUD makes it appear.

The point is that the same "BSD-Based" OS is in those devices as in the current Mac computers, so its lineage has little to do with how the hardware is adapted to support a version of the OS where ads are forced.

Keep in mind that Apple has, in the past, crippled the ability of users to debug certain processes in Mac OS X -- processes like iTunes -- presumably because they had a vested interest in thwarting those users. What makes you think that they would allow you to run kill on a process that makes them money?

Personally, I want to say that this is just FUD. Much as I disagree with Apple's tactics, I do not think they would bother shoving iAds in Mac OS X; I think it is more likely that they will just shove i

So does mine. And I hate it every time.
I have ripped and re-burned my most regularly watched movies simply to not be forced to repeatedly sit through the advertising for years old "coming attractions" and the Interpol warning.

I own the disk. I own the player. I get to be in control of how I watch it.

My DVD player disables certain functions while it is playing advertisements.

Of course, the annoying thing about that is that advertising and previews wasn't why the DVD player has mandatory "no-skip" sections -- it was for the copyright notice.

Then a bunch of marketing weenies at Disney and others decided to make all of the previews and crap as mandatory as well.

I hope there's a special place in hell reserved for people who put mandatory ads into DVDs and other things. I'm pretty sure that if I bought a machine that locked me out until I watched an ad, I'd be taking it back to the store for a refund.

If I bought the machine, unless you gave me a discount on it or are paying me to watch ads, I'm not part of your advertising revenue.

But clever marketing people know damn well that placating your children who are demanding to see the latest "Finding Nemo" sequel is far more important to you than getting annoyed at not being able to skip past advertising trailers...

Skipping the whole "kids" thing for exactly that reason. Not interested.

Spotify kind of does the opposite of that - if you mute the sound output or turn it below a certain level (in the software, obviously it can't detect if you turn your external speakers down) it pauses the advert (at least it does on my macbook, I've not tried it on my PC yet).

Don't forget Microsoft IE4's "desktop enhancements" from back in 1997 that just stuck glorified little ads, promoted as a "hot bar" or something like that. The Channel screen saver qualifies as well. IE 5.5 and later dropped that.

Silly boy. You forgot the First Rule of Apple Desktop Computing: "It's annoyance when Microsoft does it, innovation when Apple follows."

Don't forget Microsoft IE4's "desktop enhancements" from back in 1997 that just stuck glorified little ads, promoted as a "hot bar" or something like that. The Channel screen saver qualifies as well. IE 5.5 and later dropped

Arrag, and all these years I was trying to erase that from my memory. The real purpose of the channel bar and channel screen saver was to promote Microsoft Internet Explorer 4. With the "enhanced" desktop IE 4 logos were also plastered all over other places in the user interface and used

I doubt Apple would do forced ads in OS X itself... but I could see iWork and iLife being free, albeit ad supported and perhaps other apps like Aperture or Logic Studio... sort of free with ads or pay for the full version. I could see the same thing in their movie trailers...

OSX & iOS users are not it. Frankly, pushed ads on those platforms would be suicidal - remember that Opera STILL has the millstone of ads around it's neck years after they went away. (Aside: I prefer Opera to every other browser - I still think it's faster then Chrome to boot). I think there is no way it would happen on their core cash cow machines.

That being said, as another poster put it above, TV & Video is where the next market is, and that's where these will come into play. That's why there's the fights over Flash & H264. I would put some good money on Apple building a 'custom' TV package for everyone. It would run under the iTunes banner and would basically be you pony up X dollars a month and get unlimited streaming video and audio. Meanwhile there will be ads before movies and TV shows begin, which have been targetted to you based on your show and movie preferences. Welcome to the world of "iTV: TV for me".

I suspect you're right. If you look at Apple's iTunes platform, it has the makings of a real ip-based network. Streaming media in its current state (Hulu, NetFlix) represent the sort of market that Apple has proven they can go into and dominate; established revenue potential with weak existing players and inhouse technology to offer an unmatchable user experience. It could also explain Apple's North Carolina datacenter that's about to go live, and dovetails with rumors of a new AppleTV product.

I actually like this idea. It's an alternative for small application developers to make money on their hard work.

Same goes for the iPhone iADs - it's not going to pop up ads in mail or calendar - it simply provides an API for developers to write in ad serving space on their free applications. This is an alternative to actually charging people money for the software.

I could see this being a big part of a new, updated Apple TV. Ad drive OS to dramatically reduce the cost of the set-top box to a price point where consumers won't mind paying for it (compared to the free set top box they probably get from their cable provider). Now, while watching tv, the viewer is "forced" to watch ads served up by Apple. Not that much different from the current situation but now with the added functionality that Apple will provide.

Ads will not on their own push people to alternatives. You need two things before Joe User will switch:

They need to know there are alternatives

They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications

Until then it doesn't matter. If OS X delivered electric shocks to its users at random intervals, they still wouldn't switch to something else if they didn't know there was a something else, or if they couldn't run their applications on that something else in exactly the same way they run it on OS X (and ditto for Windows).

In other words, in case you didn't get the memo, emulation options are not good enough for most users. As an example, most users would try Wine once (at most) and then never want to use it again because it isn't exactly the same as what they are used to.

Every Mac OS X user on this planet knows that there is an alternative -- Apple's entire marketing strategy is based on conveying the idea that the choice is between Windows and Mac OS X. Now, whether those user are aware of the dozens of other alternatives out there is another story.

They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications

Not in my experience. I have seen people with no technical expertise at all switch from Windows to Fedora (GNOME) and have little difficulty after the first day or so.

The real impediment to people switching away from Apple's products is the amount of effort Apple has put into their marketing campaign. People are convinced that Apple's desktops and laptops are in a completely different category from every other company's desktops and laptops, and that Mac OS X is the greatest operating system in the entire world (never mind that PC-BSD is considered the easiest operating system to learn how to use, and that Mac OS X is routinely cracked faster than its competitors at pwn2own). People are willing to pay a substantial premium for Apple's computers and software, and that adds to their belief that they are getting something better than anything else out there.

Apple's customers also do not care about the issues that gave rise to the GPL -- just look at iPhone and iPad sales. Telling an Apple customer that switching to a libre operating system will free them from Apple's tactics is pointless, since they do not perceive Apple's tactics as a problem. All they see is software that they are convinced is better than everything else, and someone who is telling them that they should switch to be free of a problem they don't think they have.

This patent was granted about two years ago. The main point of the patent is to give Apple a way of including ad services in the core of its OS. That service, iAds, is now part of the iPhone OS.

The illustrations and scenarios are probably bogus to make people think this will apply to Mac OS X and for a completely different purpose. Read the patent carefully (patent #20090265214), and you'll see it applies directly to iAds.

Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for operating a device, the method comprising: disabling a function of an operating system in a device; presenting an advertisement in the device while the function is disabled; and enabling the function in response to the advertisement ending.

When you view iAds, the functions of the OS are "disabled" (that is, until you dismiss the iAd). The OS is reenabled once the iAd is dismissed.

Claim 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the function among a plurality of functions before each advertisement presentation.

Sounds like iAds.

Claim 12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising presenting in the device a user-selectable control that when activated triggers at least one selected from the group consisting of: causing presentation of a page from an advertiser associated with the advertisement; recording a user rating of the advertisement; again presenting the advertisement; sharing the advertisement with another user; initiating a transaction for user purchase of a product that eliminates the presentation of advertisements on the device; postponing presentation of the advertisement; causing the advertisement to be presented ahead of schedule; causing a previous advertisement to be presented; causing a preview of a subsequent advertisement to be presented; causing an overview of all available advertisements to be presented; and initiating a transaction for user purchase of a product or service to which the advertisement relates.

Yup, iAds.

If you've never applied for a patent, you don't understand this weird world.

When you apply for a patent, you must keep the patent broad enough that no one else can make a slight modification and get around your patent. For example, I come up with a totally new and cool device. Let's say a holographic sex robot. I use the term "keyboard based control pad" to define how this device works. Someone copies my holographic sex robot, but doesn't use a "keyboard based control pad". My patent is useless.

You also need to keep the patent defined tight enough to avoid prior art. Imagine this time I take care of defining my holographic sex robot as a mere electronically enabled sex device, that way, no one could build a similar device, but make it less robotic and thus avoid my patent. In this case, someone could show prior art by showing that there are already electronically enabled sex devices on the market.

When you apply for a patent, you are showing intentions of future directions and thus alerting potential competitors. Imagine if you're an electronics gaming company and you're thinking of building a holographic sex robot. You come up with some unique features and want to patent them. But, you must be careful not to alert your potential competitors what you have in mind. They could try to throw up their own patents in front of your efforts, or come up with their own sex robots before you get a chance with your holographic sex robot.
Instead, when you file your patent, you pretend the patent covers a new unique touch interface with a certain responsive IO. You draw console screens to illustrate how your device works. You never mention the words "holographic", "sex", or "robot". Now, when you come out with your holographic sex robot at CES in Las Vegas, you've taken the market by complete surprise.

Of course, there is the case that Apple will never use this patent. Most patents applied for are never used

I wouldn't see this as a bad thing. It lets Apple improve their OS. If you have played World of Warcraft, you know Blizzard uses the subscription income to constantly create new content and features.
Besides, who can't take a 30 second break from computer every once in a while? Knowing Apple, the ads will be good and interesting to the viewer. This is really a non-issue. You will get to see interesting software or services (most likely tailored for you) and Apple can keep developing their OS.
Sign me up!

Oh yes, because I would much rather view forced ads every so often than pay the $5 per machine it costs to volume license Snow Leopard. Even if you're only buying one, it's only $29 for an upgrade or $169 for Leopard, iWork and iLife or $229 for 5.

I hope they don't; the last thing we need is for children and teenagers to be exposed to even more advertising. Things are bad enough as is, we really need to be removing advertisements from schools instead of inviting even more in.

When have schools flocked to free (beer) software? It is rare to see schools using no cost operating systems, despite their wide availability. If schools migrated to an ad-supported Mac OS X, it would be because someone from Apple came to a school board meeting and gave a 4 h

Not sure how it'd hurt apple to offer a free version of their operating system that is ad supported. I bet schools would even jump on this to start saving some money. Hell maybe Apple would cut them in on some fo the revenue for advertising to their captive teen audience.

It would hurt Apple in the same way that it would hurt Mercedes to offer a cheaper car with in-dash advertising. Apple is not going after the low-cost market, they're going after the quality-integrated market; minor cost-savings don't help them do that.

I was thinking along the same lines. iAds could greatly reduce the cost of Apple products. I imagine that Apple would still have their Ad-Free OS installed on computers selling for the same as the current prices. However, if someone chose to get the iAds pre-installed versions, the costs would be steeply discounted. I don't see how this is different from a cheap Dell shipping with a bunch of bloat-ware.

Exactly. And Apple is one of the fastest growing computer vendors right now because of the impression that they are, in fact, very different from a cheap Dell shipping with a bunch of bloatware. Why would they jeopardize that?

... that advertising company has gone out of its way so that you are *not* locked into their services. The work required to dump Apple, especially if you're computer+phone+medial player is quite a lot.

can you give me some examples? when i lost my ipod, i had no troubles switching to using my blackberry as a media player. i've moved firefox profiles and photoshop/illustrator files (with all supporting fonts, images, etc) from my macbook to a windows machine and opened them with no issues. i just haven't seen this alleged vendor lock-in that i keep hearing so much about, and i have to wonder what i'm missing.

If Apple wanted to subsidize Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, they would just release a version that runs on non-Apple hardware and charge more for it.

That issue has nothing to do with money, it has to do with marketing -- they have worked very hard for people to make a distinction between Macintosh and every other PC out there, and ensuring that their software only runs on Macintosh computers is part of that effort.

I got my numbers from Apple themselves, in the investor conference call on Tuesday, and the precise number is 33% increase in sales year-over-year from the same quarter last year. You can listen to the call yourself on Apple's website, or here is a summary [theappleblog.com] of some of the biggest stuff. Apple's numbers are more accurate than Gartner's, unless you think Apple is outright lying about their numbers and foresee jailtime for their executives in the near future. Also of note is that sales in Asia are up 71%, an

Those figures are worldwide, and include places like China where OSX has little hold (and Microsoft doesn't really either since most people pirate Windows). And yet they are still growing. If you look at US marketshare, it's above 10%. If you look at consumer marketshare (and remove business computers), it's even higher. And it's growing. Mac sales in Asia grew 71% year-over-year. You can talk about 'quick turnover of the existing base,' but that doesn't take into account that half of the sales growth